ICANN's Directors Once Again Shirk Their Responsbilities

Among these resolutions was one in which ICANN's Board unanimously adopted an
'IPv4 Global Allocation Policy'.

IP address allocation policy is the most crucial matter ever to come before
ICANN's board. IP addresses are the fuel on which the internet runs.
Without an IP address a person or computer is simply not part of the
internet. A policy that says who can get addresses and under what terms
has a breathtaking impact on the shape of future internet growth. Such a
policy will have a significant impact on what enterprises survive and what
enterprises fail. The economic and social ramifications of IP address
policy vastly overshadow the effects of ICANN's domain name policies.

Any policy regarding IP address allocation, therefore, ought to be made only
with the greatest degree of lucidity and with the greatest attention to its
technical, economic, and social effects.

Unfortunately, once again, ICANN fiddled and danced - and
made jokes - and avoided the difficult, but necessary, work of actually
engaging with the issues of this extremely important matter.

The resolution adopting this policy asserts the following 'facts':

'the Board has considered the public comments that were submitted to the forum'

[the Board] 'determined that existing procedures adequately address
the issues that were raised

[N]o objection was raised by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee or other ICANN advisory bodies

ICANN has never responded to any of these comments. There is no reason
to believe that ICANN's Board or any board member is even aware of those
comments.

I challenge ICANN to demonstrate that any board member ever read these
comments, much less considered them when making his or her decision on the IPv4
address policy.

As for the board's assertion that 'existing procedures adequately
address the issues that were raised'. Hogwash. There is no
indication that the board or any of its members actually reached this conclusion
except by being led to it by the nose by 'staff'. And the
assertion is also factually incorrect. Not one of the concerns raised is
covered by any existing procedures.

And finally - as for objections by the so-called 'Security and Stability Advisory Committee':
Because that committee operates in total secrecy how can anyone tell what that
committee says or does?

Once more we have the members of ICANN's board acting as nothing more than mindless
monkeys who respond with affirmative noises to whatever is put in front of them.

There is no indication that any ICANN Board member actually performed his or
her duty to make an independent and informed judgment on what is, in truth the
most critical, and in fact the only truly technical, matter ever to come before
ICANN: IP address allocation policy.

ICANN has many flaws, but perhaps its greatest flaw is that the members of
its Board of Directors again and again and again insult the internet community
and violate their duties by refusing to take the time to try to comprehend and
understand the issues put before them and refusing to make their own independent
decisions.

ICANN's Board, both as a body and as individuals, has demonstrated once again
that even when compared to the extremely lax standards of the past board's of
Enron, Tyco, and MCI/Worldcom, ICANN's board and its members comes out gravely
wanting.

ICANN's directors should be ashamed of themselves. Not even one
director has indicated that he or she is treating his or her role with the kind
of attention and respect that the community of internet users deserves and which
the law requires.